Show and tell time: Conflicting claims of support in the race for Texas House speaker face a reality check today

Conflicting claims of support in the race for Texas House speaker face a reality check today.

Published 6:30 am, Tuesday, January 9, 2007

State Rep. Tom Craddick of Midland has insisted all along he had a working majority of the members of the Texas House to maintain his grip on the speaker's gavel for a third term.

The challenger, Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, claims he has the votes to end Craddick's rule. Of course, before he folded his candidacy in favor of Pitts, Plano Republican Brian McCall said the same thing. Houston Democrat Senfronia Thompson, who made a symbolic bid for the office before endorsing McCall, met with Pitts and indicated he also is acceptable.

Because the legislators' pledges are nonbinding, and some members might have made multiple commitments, all the speaker hopefuls' claims might have been accurate. When the voting takes place today, the NBA slogan "let the truth be told" will finally apply.

The insurrection against Craddick is fueled by charges he shut most Democrats out of the legislative process while bullying moderate Republicans into voting for measures such as school vouchers and social services budget cuts that were against the interests of their districts. Some members blame Craddick's tactics for diminishing the Republican majority that peaked at 88 in 2003 and fell to 81 after the recent elections.

Craddick has maintained the loyalty of some Democrats such as Houston's Sylvester Turner, whom Craddick appointed speaker pro tempore. The speaker's demonstrated capacity to punish colleagues who oppose his positions adds uncertainty as to whether a majority will risk voting against him if the outcome is unsure.

Pitts, chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, will surely be forced out if he loses his challenge. But Craddick was rumored to be planning to remove him anyway because of policy disagreements. Pitts might have nothing to lose in challenging the speaker.

The outcome of the most competitive speaker's contest in decades might be dictated by whether the vote is conducted by secret ballot or public roll call. If House members could vote without fear of retaliation, GOP strategist Royal Masset told the Chronicle, Pitts would win.

The Chronicle has consistently supported the principle that legislative votes should be public in order to make elected representatives accountable to their constituents. Since the speaker election requires a vote of the entire membership rather than just the majority party, it should be on the record. Because a vote to veil the balloting would have to be on the record, incumbent Craddick would have little trouble figuring out who his enemies are.

Choosing a speaker could be the most important vote taken in the House this session. If lawmakers believe Craddick has not conducted himself in the best interests of their constituents, they should summon the courage of their convictions and state their preference for all to see.

Hiding behind a secret ballot would simply display more of the temerity that allowed Craddick to bully members of his own party into submission.